http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/business/10women.html?em
I dunno about articles like this. It seems like really old fashioned out of date feminism, the idea that "shouldn't we all bond together as women?" Its not the 90s anymore. everything is not about what group we identify with. certainly, there is a time and a place for feminism, and we shouldn't call other women sluts and we shouldn't hold up thin idiots as our heroines. but like, the study found that 60 percent of the bullies were men. forgive me, but i don't really see what we are upset about. is it that no women should be bullies? why not?
I guess that's the problem that I have with this article. it assumes that a) women should be superior to men, and b) women should be quiet, meek and unbullyish. The article expresses a surprise that more of bullies were not men. has the author been living under a rock for his/her entire life? I find that women tend to be much bigger "bullies," because something in our socialization makes us focus on relationships between people rather than focusing on the achievement of a specific goal. In many ways, I would say that this is a smarter stance than men have. there is a grade curve for everything, and so rather than blindly focus on a score, mightn't we be more successful if we are aware of how others are scoring? I think it's interesting that the smarter stance is not the most successful, and I think that is what speaks to the vast inequalities between men and women in the workplace. men, no matter how they blunder their way through it, are more likely to succeed.
so yes, like the author of this article, i am concerned about women in the workplace. and I think the author raises an interesting point about the means to success- though he/she (sorry, the name is Mickey so I dunno) doesn't actually make the point. how do we succeed in a field where we do not run the show? We make our own field. Meece talks to many female "bullies" who have since started their own company. Maybe we should re-evaluate our female "bullies." Are they not perhaps women who should have made it to the top of the game, natural leaders, whose behavior was deemed unnatural because of their gender, and who couldn't crack that glass ceiling? Also, what about the 60 percent of bullies that are men. Why is the article not about how we can fix the majority of bullies, but instead how we can fix a minority?
I dunno about articles like this. It seems like really old fashioned out of date feminism, the idea that "shouldn't we all bond together as women?" Its not the 90s anymore. everything is not about what group we identify with. certainly, there is a time and a place for feminism, and we shouldn't call other women sluts and we shouldn't hold up thin idiots as our heroines. but like, the study found that 60 percent of the bullies were men. forgive me, but i don't really see what we are upset about. is it that no women should be bullies? why not?
I guess that's the problem that I have with this article. it assumes that a) women should be superior to men, and b) women should be quiet, meek and unbullyish. The article expresses a surprise that more of bullies were not men. has the author been living under a rock for his/her entire life? I find that women tend to be much bigger "bullies," because something in our socialization makes us focus on relationships between people rather than focusing on the achievement of a specific goal. In many ways, I would say that this is a smarter stance than men have. there is a grade curve for everything, and so rather than blindly focus on a score, mightn't we be more successful if we are aware of how others are scoring? I think it's interesting that the smarter stance is not the most successful, and I think that is what speaks to the vast inequalities between men and women in the workplace. men, no matter how they blunder their way through it, are more likely to succeed.
so yes, like the author of this article, i am concerned about women in the workplace. and I think the author raises an interesting point about the means to success- though he/she (sorry, the name is Mickey so I dunno) doesn't actually make the point. how do we succeed in a field where we do not run the show? We make our own field. Meece talks to many female "bullies" who have since started their own company. Maybe we should re-evaluate our female "bullies." Are they not perhaps women who should have made it to the top of the game, natural leaders, whose behavior was deemed unnatural because of their gender, and who couldn't crack that glass ceiling? Also, what about the 60 percent of bullies that are men. Why is the article not about how we can fix the majority of bullies, but instead how we can fix a minority?
posted by Amanda at 5:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home